SUBHASHINI Vs. SECRETARY KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY KOYILANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT.P1 is a lease agreement between the petitioner and the third respondent. Based on Ext.P1, petitioner made an application for a licence in respect of the leased premises. That was rejected by the Municipality as per Ext.P2 order stating that the consent of the owner of the property is not enclosed along with the application.

(2.) PETITIONER says that although Ext.P3 settlement deed has been executed by the third respondent in favour of his children, the right to receive rent in respect of the leased premises has been reserved by him. Therefore, she says that the application made by her was wrongly rejected. It is also stated that the third respondent himself made a representation to the Municipality objecting to Ext.P2. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed.